[SSSD] INI validation design thoughts

Dmitri Pal dpal at redhat.com
Wed Apr 7 20:58:05 UTC 2010


>> No, we absolutely need to have the ability for third-party backends to
>> have their own completely self-sufficient configuration.
>>
>>     
>
> Then we will just not have it at all for now.
> Sorry. I can't commit to doing something of this complexity
> in a reasonable time.
>
>   
After some more thinking and a bit of cooling.
We do not add the ability to handle the 3rd party back end day one.
Why? One of the reasons - it is a too big task to chew.
We have a plan how to get there. Slowly!
We tries several time though I asked for it to be thought through day one.
It was not and thus we had more things to change.

Here we can think about it as a design goal and even spec it a bit
but delay the actual implementation.
Why we have to deliver the config validation complexity day one?
Why can't follow the same steps as with actual back ends?

The whole packaging guidelines seems like a dark magic in this case.
Anyone can edit a config file: an admin manually, a puppet manifest
automatically, etc.

I do not see how the schema file is different in this case and
why it can't be edited in the same way by different sources.
What you are saying really seems as an artificial requirement for v1.
Please example how shcema file is different from any config file that
anyone can edit?



> _______________________________________________
> sssd-devel mailing list
> sssd-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
>
>   


-- 
Thank you,
Dmitri Pal

Engineering Manager IPA project,
Red Hat Inc.


-------------------------------
Looking to carve out IT costs?
www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/




More information about the sssd-devel mailing list